Pages

Religion seems to have become a bone of contention in the intellectual circles of today; everyone has some or the other opinion on it. The...

3/26/2017

Religion seems to have become a bone of contention in the intellectual circles of today; everyone has some or the other opinion on it. The debate on ethics and morality has not proved to be a laggard and is discussed as ferociously as is religion- its twin brother, with which it is clearly intertwined. In a new India that is witnessing the advent of pan-India saffronization, it is pertinent that questions are raised on either of these issues- issues which are influential enough to alter the course of a nation state in the postmodern world.

It is the malady of our age that the word 'religion' brings to mind bouts of violence, unrest, and bloodshed when in actuality the definitions of religions contradict these images of gore. Every religion on this planet implores man to go on the quest of eternal knowledge, to seek his inner self and find God within himself. A popular couplet conveys the idea that one may traverse the entire universe in search of the divine, but at the end, he finds God within himself. However, it is indeed appalling to learn that more and more people are getting brainwashed into believing their religion reigns supreme over others. This is the root cause of communal disharmony. Fanatics gulp down each and every word proclaimed by their spiritual mentors, without adequately checking the veracity of statements made. Such observers of blind faith are on the continuous lookout for an association; and they cling onto the flimsy veil of nationalism. How on earth otherwise can we even attempt to explain such condemnable acts as was perpetrated in the Dadri lynching, or the Muzzafarnagar riots?
While pretentious nature can still be dealt with, any sane-headed rational being cannot tolerate hyper-nationalistic jingoism.

This brings to limelight the grim reality: people essentially have a false notion of religion, the belief of religious supremacy and the fact that it can be used as a tool of dominance. Here is where morality comes in- while blind belief can degrade one's morality, having the right notion of religion tends to make man more compassionate and magnanimous. Morality begins to corrode the moment we seek shelter in the idea of "I, me, and myself".

How intricate and delicately weaved is the link between morality and religion! In contemporary times, the ones who 'claim' Godly associations and who view religion from the diseased eye are the most morally corrupt. Instead, the common man who preserves his own brand of faith and belief in karma (and without any ornamental, showy grandiloquence) is bound to have a righteous character. Despite rising acts of intolerance and religious polarization, it will be long before humanitarian values are wiped away. It is indeed heartening to learn that an 'autowala' in Mumbai asks his passengers to pay the fare they think is justified so that the total fund can ensure the education of a child. Take for example the people of the North-East, who despite years of racial subjugation by mainstream India continue to treat every tourist as a homely guest, with smiles that remain unparalleled. Consider the case of that honest taxi driver who reports your lost valuables to the local police station. Or, take the case of the devout Sikhs for whom humanity precedes religion- offering free food in langars at the Golden Temple in unimaginable volumes per day. Or, the beggar who returned an expensive engagement ring after it slipped from the fingers into his begging bowl. The number of such acts that restore our belief in humanity is rising by the day, and this on all accounts is a positive trend!

In a world that is clearly right-thinking, and in an India where firebrand politics is still played to secure vote banks, such pools of positivity are alike oases amidst a barren desert of religious and moral misconvictions. I would agree that the general trend does not correlate with the view optimists harbour, but with faith in ourselves and a desire to change, we can steer India out of any religious or moral discordance.

Recently I was in conversation with few of my acquaintances, including a veteran teacher, who work in reputed international schools i...

11/09/2016

Recently I was in conversation with few of my acquaintances, including a veteran teacher, who work in reputed international schools in the Delhi-NCR region. At the first mention of the phrase 'international school', a flowery idea of futuristic classrooms come to our mind. Being in the twenty-first century, it is essential to come to terms with globalisation at an early age. However, there is something she put in my ears, that had my alarm bells ringing: a serious lack of virtues, crippled ethics, and a dominant trait of immorality prevails wide in such schools. I had a talk with them to understand what actually goes on behind the veil of glitters.

The first and foremost striking difference between missionary schools and international schools is that the latter is more diversified in terms of culture. Students and teachers from different ethnic backgrounds intermingle here. These schools are established where there is a mass influx of brains: primarily, tier one cities. This consequently gives rise to new brands of ideas, a hybrid between the oriental and the post-modern. This, in all respects, has a consequential positive impact on the minds of the students enrolled. However, here lies a good irony. Despite having a blend and the best of cultures from around the world, many students have complained of a cultural identity crisis because of the failure to associate or relate oneself with one's roots.

The number of such institutions has swelled exponentially over the last couple of years, across the length and breadth of the country. In doing so, a vast majority of the private managerial and executive heads responsible for these schools have opted for an algorithmic approach to modern schooling: input, load with data, and output. Befuddled with such a method, I felt apoplectic at how primary schooling has taken a turn into just another domain of profitable venture for businessmen. After all, these people only understand green on financial reports, don't they?

When asked about whether there is in force the practice of fudging of marks, the response was surprisingly affirmative. One of them says, with visible regret written on the face, "Yes, indeed because everyone needs to be projected as good. Authenticity is a big issue." We must take to account the fact that where the integrity of the marking system is being questioned, there is a serious question mark on the way the management has put the functional controls in place. Why should the administration put the academic roots of potentially bright students in jeopardy? What this essentially does is that it weakens any form of self-evaluatory assessments that a person must acquaint himself with right from early days. A failure to assess and learn from one's failure would only serve to hinder any future prospects.

In essence, the parents are treated like customers in such schools. To cite yet another instance, teachers are instructed to prepare coffee for the parents when they walk in for parent-teacher meets. Working in a plethora of schools during her career span, every such school branding itself as "international" has had a similar string of concerns following the diabolical pattern. A serious lack of discipline is in stark contrast to that of missionary schools run by the Salesian community, and the Church of North India. There is an urgent need to realise that manufacturing students with a mere touch of academic perfection is of no use to a nation: India rests on the foundation pillars of oriental virtues- and that, precisely, is being eroded by malpractices in these schools.

Another facet of the debate extends to the line where values propagated by the school is subject to change as per the needs of the business. This is perilous to the impressionable minds of the children, who absorb anything that is provided to them. In my opinion, and I believe this applies to all rational people out there, schools need to be freed from the chains of private greed. Compromises must not be made where education comes into question. The lamentable fact is that this is the cornerstone of the glaring business today.

Incidents of a tragic nature are also increasingly finding its way through the annals of the international schooling structure in India. More often than not, irresponsibility on the part of these international schools has led to catastrophic disasters which could have been avoided. In an odd event, a student of a famed school met her death because of negligence on part of the official school travel bus. In another incident, carelessness and laxity on part of an international school from Mumbai cost a child her fingers for life. The worst part is, the management of both the schools tried to take the matter behind curtains and hush the voices of the growing dissent against such malpractices.

A unilateral focus on percentages brings fame for the school, but at the end of the day, the students remain as shallow as ever: for a man without a personality is a man of void. As justified by surveys across the world, the future performance of a student is dependent on his all-round activities and not his academics alone. I hope this issue gets its due share of attention: such a narrow-minded prioritisation of marks over morals is condemnable and should be castigated to the last degree. If businessmen do not look to rectify their ethical errors, the legislature should. The Ministry of Human Resource Development should take up this matter on an urgent basis and formulate necessary laws so as to ensure that students (as well as parents) are not exploited in the name of futuristic education. After all, education is of no use unless the behavorial components of the character complement them.

“I’m not an animal anymore” Yeong-hye is, in her husband’s opening words, "completely unremarkable in every way." She is a ...

10/22/2016

“I’m not an animal anymore”

Yeong-hye is, in her husband’s opening words, "completely unremarkable in every way." She is a reasonably diligent homemaker, a reasonably attentive consort, not deeply unhappy and driven by no great passions. Her husband, Mr Cheong is an imperious dullard fully at peace with his own mediocrity. He chose her due to her unassertiveness and sheer blandness. Things begin to fracture and their staid lives are disrupted the day Yeong-hye throws away all the meat from the freezer and announces that henceforth she is going to be a vegetarian. The sole explanation she provided? “ I had a dream.” The dream, divulged to us in fleeting, cursory glances, is dark, bloody and aggressive, replete with invasive images of brutality. Violence breaks out in her waking world, too, when her father tries to force a piece of sweet-and-sour pork into her mouth. And in revolt, she stabs herself.

And it goes downhill from here. Other people are dragged in , other relationships fray and the otherwise well-knit family tethers precariously to the brink of disintegration.

There is no end to the horrors that rattle in and out of this ferocious , death-affirming magnificent novel. Han’s mystifying, ecstatic novella-in-three parts zigzags in a certain rough-hewn way between domestic thriller, transformation parable and arborphiliac meditation told from three perspectives – first, her lousy, unenthused husband; second, her brother in law who works at an art studio and who views himself as an outsider and projects his dark lustful fantasies onto her pursuit of his vision; third her sister, In-hye , the manager of a cosmetic store, trying to find her own way of dealing with the fallout from the family’s collapse . This taut novel shows the friction between huge passion and chilling detachment, between desires fed and those denied.

Apart from its imaginative plot and its well-etched unhinged heroine, what excels in this book is the consistent vitality and sensuality of Kang’s writing which shines through; Deborah Smith’s artfully served subtle English that literally sings has heartbreaking lyricism. Kang’s language pulsates with colour, texture, taste and emotion . Even the sensation of silence pierces through . The tension in this multilayered novel is the way in which art , nature and desire crash through this polite society. Violence erupts without warning. Smith’s translation is in bone spare English, the sentences are cool, calm, still and workmanlike even as the characters undergo convulsions of rage and mental turmoil.

What follows underline the haunting journey of a woman transformed, repealing everything conventional to assign meaning to her inner voice . Experiencing erotic exploitation, discarding worldly echoes and embracing a floristic world, Yeong-hye moves from a home to a studio to a psych hospital with incredible equanimity and singular passion. Kang questions human dichotomies and their constant collision against the intrinsic manacles of society.

This wasn’t an easy read for me, frequently veering on the bizarre and curiously mystical, puncturing a perfect reading demeanour but the litheness of the prose came in to rescue me which kept me oddly hydrated. The failure to comprehend even our closest ones is an underlying theme of this novel. It is the women who are killed for daring to eke out their identity. The narrative makes it clear it is the crushing pressure of Korean etiquettes that splinters and murders them.

Fraught, cerebral, disturbing and enthralling, The Vegetarian is a darkly allegorical Kafka esque tale of power, obsession, cultural limits, art as the private refuge, the value of the human body and one woman’s struggle to break free from the violence both without and within.

This is a guest post by Debanjan Roy. It is his debut post on idipankan.com. Copyright reserved by Master Roy. All publication rights are retained by Dipankan Bandopadhyay.

The year 2016 had a spicy opening, when the Pathankot attacks widely dented any notion of growing Indo-Pakistani diplomatic patch-up. It is...

10/01/2016

The year 2016 had a spicy opening, when the Pathankot attacks widely dented any notion of growing Indo-Pakistani diplomatic patch-up. It is an undeniable fact that the public perception continues to be mostly negative in all facets of discussion concerning Pakistan. On 18th September, during the change of army staff at Uri, four heavily armed terrorists evaded security and opened fire on the army camps: the result was inevitable, known, and antagonistic to Indian nationalistic sentiments. Nineteen soldiers were killed. The penultimate day of September witnessed something atypical: surgical strikes were orchestrated by the 9 Para SF of the Indian Army, in what can be called a cross-border operation of an unprecedented scale. The heliborne attacks were devised to eliminate the terror "launch pads" on the opposite side of the Line of Control. This was, in the most elemental of terms, a direct response to the Pakistani provocation after months of strategic restraint.

Right after the Uri attacks, as if in a real-life movie playback, the anticipated blame-game started, with both sides lambasting the other over the tragic and condemnable attacks. Nawaz Sharif was prompt to escalate the issue to the United Nations General Assembly, highlighting the oppurtunist that he is, by incorporating statements and statistics taken out of context to try and belittle India in the international sphere. Nearly six and a half decades after independence, Pakistan remains India's biggest foreign policy challenge. Even China- Pakistan's closest and most-dependable all weather ally- has not taken an official stand, and neither a definite side, over the Uri outrage. A detailed analysis of such a reaction reveals a lot of undercurrents brewing below the surface: by refusing to take a stand, China has clearly adopted the wait-and-watch response for the Uri mishap, instead of getting embroiled into the raging controversy of the Indo-Pakistan flames. Of late, though, China has displayed a hint of fightback: blocking the Indian-led resolution to sanction Masood Azhar, a globally infamous terrorist.

Some hot-headed Indian commentators call for war and strikes on terrorist facilities in Pakistan deep within the nation. However, New Delhi must understand that undertaking such an action, filled with risk to the very brim, would explicitly invoke war between the two countries. Considering the contemporary reality where both the States are nuclear-capable (although there is a clear superiority for one), such a war cannot be won by either side: a perfect example of a scenario of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), in the words of John von Neumann. US Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton recently voiced concerns over what she understands as the threat of "nuclear suicide bombers". Given the high level of distrust of the civilian government, and the wide admiration for the army among the Pakistani populace, the ground is favourable for coups. For most of Pakistan's history, military leaders have been at the helm of the government. Democratically elected civilian governments have been at best, weak. Such coups bring in bouts of instability, and there is a high probability of sensitive nuclear weapons and applications getting into the hands of radical extremists and jihadists the country has harboured for such a long period of time. Clinton pragmatically proposed that such a situation would be a threatening one, a catalytic event of unthinkable aftermath.

It would be worthwhile to note that the United Nations Security Council, vide its resolution 1373 (S/RES/1373) adopted right after the heinous attacks on the emblem of the globalized world trade in 2001, reaffirmed "... the principle established by the General Assembly in its declaration of October 1970 (resolution 2625 (XXV)) and reiterated by the Security Council in its resolution 1189 (1998) of 13 August 1998, namely that every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts...". Moreover, a careful look at other international obligations unfurls that under Charter VII of the United Nations, the State shall, "... refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists...". This is an unswerving pointer to Pakistan, and the similarities borne which deem necessary appropriate sanctions against Islamabad are many. Pakistan has, despite pressure from global powers, refused to bring to book such people as Hafiz Saaed- a terror sachem, and reviled as the founder of the dreaded terror network of Lashkar-e-Toiba. India's diplomatic blueprint to contain the Pakistani problem has worked to some extent: Bangladesh, Bhutan and Afghanistan, despite being minnows, have boycotted the SAARC summit that was scheduled to be held in Islamabad in early November: the resultant effectively being that the SAARC meet had be cancelled. This is also a brilliant example of non-combative strategies to handle a rogue nation: stepping up the heat diplomatically, if not militarily.

Imran Khan, the cricketer-turned-politician and founder of the Tehreek-i-Insaaf party tried to justify the stand that the vast majority of the commonalty would prefer friendship over war, for war is no solution. This, if evaluated independently, is indeed a statement to take note of. However, what follows can be effectively looked upon with a cynical view: that the Uri attacks have led Modi and the entirety of India to blatantly accuse Pakistan without proper investigations. There are a few questions that I would present at this juncture. Is Pakistan not aware of the whereabouts of the most notorious of criminals roaming freely within its territory? Is Pakistan so incapable as to succumb to populism over doing what would be the right thing to do, keeping in minds its own interests in the long term? Has Pakistan not deliberately diverted foreign funding to counter the Taliban threat by the NATO-sponsored campaign in the Swat valley and the NWFP, to reinforce its defence lines against India? All of this boils down to one singular question of monumental significance: If Pakistan knows of all this, why is it not taking concrete action that looks both ethically, and morally, legitimate?

The Uri tensions have given way to certain ramifications that can be considered as denigratory. The Indian Motion Pictures Producers Association (IMPPA) passed a resolution banning actors and technicians from the neighbouring country from working in India until normalcy returns. This was the MNS's rudimentary demand as well, a right wing saffronised party could only clamour for such hasty actions. What benefit would there be to ban such versatile celebrities of sufficient calibre as Rahat Fateh Ali Khan or Fawad Khan? As the online magazine Quartz appropriately pointed out, Pakistani people who believe in humanity and aspire to be celebrities don't need Bollywood as their sole gateway to success. Bollywood is not a charity organization, and if it was, it would probably put the reknowned Pakistani charity-god, Abdul Sattar Edhi to shame. In more cases than one, these people are hardworking enough to be independent of political affiliation; and they are people too- but only strangled by the superficial colours of nationality, race, and religion. I strongly deplore such rampant moves of hate, and am of the firm conviction that my fellow brothers and sisters from all corners of India would undoubtedly sympathize with me over such decisions. India is a pluralistic society of unparalleled proportions, and as I frequently reiterate, its success lies in such a foundation of diversity.

As a rational Indian, and more importantly as people who believe in faith transcending all barriers of hate and partisanship, we would only ask for a proper solution to this otherwise spiralling conflict. In one of my previous articles, I had highlighted that war can never be stopped by war. The Kashmir Valley is reeling from a brutal onslaught of terrorism and suspension of democratic logistics. Curfews have curbed all freedoms, and every person of Kashmiri origin has been compelled to shame and suspicion. Islam, as people call, is a religion of peace; the Quran shares a lot of verses with the Holy Bible. Yet, rapacious religious leaders have deliberately misinterpreted the Holy Book of Islam and shown the wrong path to the youth. It is unquestionable that should children be exposed to such unprecedented levels of violence from a tender age, they would often try to avenge their horrific memories by turning to guns. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that Kashmiris are rendered equal treatment by law agencies, and to think of them as members of our own family- instead of casting shadows of doubts on every Kashmiri native. Also, we as the people of India do shoulder an unconditional responsibility to ensure that prejudices must not creep into our thought process at any point of time, and we must take the solemn pledge to make our decisions not because we are unduly influenced by anyone, but because we understand the conflict at individual levels.

Secularism has always been a contentious topic to debate on. However, the flames of communal disharmony are raging like never before. Ever ...

8/16/2016

Secularism has always been a contentious topic to debate on. However, the flames of communal disharmony are raging like never before. Ever since the lynching of Mohammed Akhlaque in Dadri on suspicions of cow slaughter, a host of similarly patterned incidents have come to light. Even if we are to disregard the media glare and limelight that the issue has hogged, the otherwise blunt statistics are too deplorable: in the last five years, India has had fifty-eight incidents of communal distress for every month of the calendar. Even worse, all these events were concentrated within the ambit of a mere count of eight States. The Constitution defines India as a nation-state of secular fabric. The trouble is, certain right-wing mavericks are desperately trying to push India into a theocratic setup: and in the process, are creating irreparable damage to the general framework of the provisions meant to ensure the same.

Conservative jingoistic sentiments have overtaken the human emotions of love, compromise, and consideration. A handful of videos that surfaced on social media, and later became viral, depict self-styled religious vigilantes horrendously beat up people accused of transporting or facilitating the consumption of beef. Recent clashes in Gujarat have turned violent after four Dalits accused of insulting the sanctity of the cow were stripped of their shirts and mercilessly tortured. The public has been, fortunately, supportive in this endeavour. Such was the power of the demonstration by the multitude that the police had to rein in the tumultuous situation by means of teargas shells and a bucketful of mob-dispersal tactics. In Madhya Pradesh, two Dalit women were assaulted by these so-called custodians of the Hindu order on the pretext of them being guilty of carrying beef: ironically enough, it turned out to be buffalo meat. A Kashmiri youth was murdered for the sole purpose of travelling in a truck carrying cattle.

Representative image.

Dalits share a lot in common with cows. Cows, as animals, are victims of death: and as such, their carcass needs to be disposed of at the earliest after their demise. For centuries, the Dalits have taken on themselves the responsibility to execute this job. After the dead animal is discarded, they skin the animal for its leather and sell the meat to legal vendors of beef. After the uproar over the condemnable attack in Gujarat, the community has threatened to halt their duty, putting an extra burden on the already unsustainable cow population in India.

After months of undignified silence, the premier of the Government, Narendra Modi expressed his strong discontent with the events at play. In a State address, Modi said that most of these cow vigilantes were criminals masked as "gau rakshaks". However, it must be kept in mind that as far as a firm resolve is concerned, the present government has had double standards. Instead of condemning the heinous attacks on the Dalits, the Social Justice Minister regretted the fact that they were initiated by baseless, unfounded rumours. Instead of defending Akhlaque, it had primarily ordered a forensic investigation so as to find out whether or not beef was stored. Modi, via his address, put forward a proposal to the States to prepare a dossier for those guilty of unwarranted vigilantism. Even the legal sphere has not been spared: Congress activist Tehseen Poonawaala has registered a PIL with the apex court demanding stern action against the members of these 'Gau Rakshak' groups. Filtering out all the cynicism, one can only hope that the strongly worded message would resonate with the otherwise heartless fanatical criminals.

Agents in the saffron brigade of India have however attempted to nullify the cautionary advice. Some people, after all, serve to be the perfect alibi for the schoolboy term, "mischief mongers". The President of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad openly accused the Prime Minister of insulting the guardians of the Gita, those who work at the grassroot levels. In my opinion, these people can deliver a harangue on any matter of social relevance, albeit from the distorted perspective. In that process, due to their natural oratory skills, some minds get radicalised with the wrong notions. That vicious chain is then a never-ending one, a contagious vice that knows no bounds. That one infected mind spreads the malicious design to the other, the other person to a hundred, and the hundred to a countless more.

It is time for an immediate crackdown on these nefarious agents who unnecessarily strain the communal tensions. As rational beings, is it not fair to merit the human life more than that of a petty cow? A unilateral focus on salvaging cows would lead to a state of disillusion, tearing apart the secular anatomy of the nation. India is successful because contributions from all sections of the society are accepted; it would collapse the moment the iniquity of such events as cow vigilantism corrodes the foundation pillars of the Constitution.

Statistics show a spike in the number of ghastly crimes against women. A major breakthrough in social awareness about rape in India came th...

7/05/2016

Statistics show a spike in the number of ghastly crimes against women. A major breakthrough in social awareness about rape in India came thundering down the society after the 2012 Delhi assault. In spite of public outrage against such gross violations of fundamental human rights, a number of cases still continue to be reported- which is a worrying trend. Prominent faces from every nook and corner of the nation have stood up to protest against the acts. However, the big question is, how effective have they been? I was distraught the moment I read the headline yesterday: a ten year old girl had been raped and murdered indignantly. And all this, by a convict, who was released from jail just a day back! It is really appalling, and rather heart-wrenching, to learn that the vices of the modern society have absolutely decimated rationality- even if it be at its base minimum.

India is a nation of twelve hundred million people; out of which approximately 674 million are men, and the rest women. I tasked myself onto researching the sex ratio of the contemporary global world- and was, to be honest, upset with the result. For starters, the human sex ratio (as defined by the United Nations) is defined as the number of males per 100 of the female population. Aggregating the data sources and crunching the numbers lends a detestable sex ratio value of 106.98 to India. The lower the index is, the better it gets. India thus has, with this number, successfully ensured the 192nd position out of 201 countries, as far as this particular metric is concerned. Even India's traditional rival, Pakistan, has managed to make the cut, inching ahead of India by claiming a value of 105.75. China has a modest sex ratio of 88.03, and given the mammoth boundaries it stretches to, it is more than justified. But we're not done yet: this is not justifiable for India.

A quick glance through digitized records uploaded at the National Crime Records Bureau is perturbing: crimes and abuse against women are going up by the day, and there seems to be no predictable retardation to the present rate. In fact, it is expected to climb higher by the day. I believe numbers expose a lot of the hypocrisy the political legislators thrive on (and hence my affinity towards numbers?). Modi, while campaigning as Prime Ministerial candidate for the nation's front line right-winged party during the 2014 General Elections, had zeroed in on women's safety as one of his focal points. In fact, a lot of his schemes were supposedly devoted to the "wholehearted empowerment" of women- schemes including "Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao", and the like. But then again, as I said, numbers are antagonistic to these politicians. I compiled a graph from the reported rape cases per annum, extending through the years 2011 to 2014. And this is what the graph looks like: (Hint: Notice the upward slope after 2013). In all, the total figure of offences against the gentler sex in 2014 itself, was capped at 337,922.

India is the oriental chief of morality- then why is this distasteful vogue still breathing its life in the society? Women are the future of mankind. Humanity would come to an end if there were no women to exist. Yet, our so-called modernized world resorts to clinging onto the patriarchal system of family ethics. Women are still suppressed, and there are many limitations on their freedom. Some hardliner states have repeatedly, in the past, tried to derail any attempts at granting women a significant share of liberal freedom. The incident wherein a mere girl of ten was assaulted by a barbarous mind needs to be castigated to the strongest possible degree. How far can we stretch our tolerance levels? Can we really bend so low so as to cause such brutality to an angel of innocence- a fountain of virtues?

The Anti-Rape Regulations Bill of 2013, a progressive measure after the public hue and outcry as a direct consequence to the heinous attack on Jyoti Singh, direct the Courts to award life imprisonment to death sentences. Capital punishment is deplored by many intellectuals across the world. In the words of Anton Chekov, the death penalty is "outdated" and "immoral", and that the "State has not the right to take away what it cannot restore". However, it must also be known that the death penalty in India has not been abolished for the simple reason that its use is restricted by a mere count of three Constitutional words: "rarest of rare". It would present a stark juxtaposition if we were to compare the anti-rape laws in India to some of the world's other States, primarily the Islamic theocracies. For example, Afghanistan has laws that permit an offender to be shot in the head or hanged, depending on the severity of the torment caused to the victim. Saudi Arabia, undoubtedly, sets a precedent- public beheading of the guilty. China resorts to castration, while North Korea has settled with death by a firing squad as the penalty.

While we can possibly lambaste molestation attempts and spread as much awareness as may be humanly possible, the political executives need to get it right as well. If Chief Ministers brush away such incidents as "Sajano Ghotona" (claim as fixed), then it is a clear hint of irresponsibility on their part- an attempt to take the escapist route. Instead, the government machinery should make an immediate crackdown and provide all legal aid to the traumatized victims. The Judiciary must ensure that evidence is not tampered with by the State. It also must ensure that no convict is allowed to go off the radar: it must bring all of them to the book. The police must shun its lackadaisical attitude towards registering rape complaints, and actually serve as more efficient personnel during times of distress: and not merely ignoring their call of duty on the lines of jurisdiction.

Remember, for every woman who is deprived of her modesty, it serves as a blot on the face of our nation. It extends beyond the global, diplomatic aftermath- and ultimately affects all of us on a personal level in one way or the other. Would you like to have your children hear tales that India is a perverted nation, or rather have them hear that India is the melting pot of the long lost righteousness of the past? It's all in our hands. Let us contribute what we can, one at a time. I am certain, and I place my firm belief on your shoulder, dear reader, that you are sympathetic to the ideas I've shared over the discourse. I recall a hymn to God:

The recent visit of the Indian Prime Minister to the United States was once again met with much enthusiasm among the political circles. Whe...

6/12/2016

The recent visit of the Indian Prime Minister to the United States was once again met with much enthusiasm among the political circles. Whether it was in Washington DC, or rather close back home in Delhi, the political pundits predict that PM Modi is aggressively pushing for improved bilateral ties between the US and India. On the third errand to the United States, as a part of a bilateral summit with President Obama, Modi was permitted to address the State Congress. Modi's repertoire of diplomatic tricks is, in a sense, unorthodox: he emphasizes on personal relations between State leaders. However, the big question is: Will this camaraderie with the States work out as an ideal solution for India? We will also analyse the probable ramifications that the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) can hold for India's defence sector.

The answer to the above question requires analysis of the current, present-day situation in Asia. China is undoubtedly the sole power, outflanking everyone by their technological might and economical strength. With its eye fixed on the South China Sea and its associated islands, China would look at the growing Indo-American relations with an eye of suspicion. If at all this works out as an informal military alliance, Beijing's plans of regional dominance will be crushed. That doesn't mean it will curl back- the probabilities for China to try and expand its influence will be ever more increasingly pestering. Another important clog in the wheel is that India is possibly endangering any hope (there wasn't any really, but still as a last measure) of wooing Beijing to support India's application to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), a 48-nation strong group of countries with nuclear capability. For decades, India has refused to be drawn into defence deals with any of the big powers. However, under Modi, India looks wary of China's truculent nature: Whether it be unprovoked aggression in what was the former NEFA- or deliberate intrusion into Ladakh territory over a number of times- Xi Jinping, the President of the People's Republic of China, has refused to tone down the diplomatic heat.

Even if we ignore the potent threat that China is, we cannot ignore Russia. Statistically, Russia still remains the largest arms supplier to India. Even if the Western media chides the Putin administration for losing out on some contracts, one cannot overlook the glaring fact that India had decided to purchase one hundred and fifty Mi-17 choppers from the former-Soviet state. Moreover, it would be worthwhile to note that Russia is the only one to take up the "Make in India" campaign as the foundation stone for its defence sales with India. However, now that in the reverie of suppressing China has India entered into pseudo-military pacts with the USA, Russia might reconsider its decision to impart sophisticated technological defence information and know-hows with India. Russia has been for long the old, time-tested partner for India- whether it be in the area of modernization, defence, investments, or even securing support for various clauses at the UNGA. The concern among veteran diplomats is, Mexico should not misread India's growing tryst with the US as a cause of worry for it.

The Logistics Exchange Memorandum Of Agreement (LEMOA) signed by India and the States looks superficially beneficial for India. As in the sugary coating that America is known to induce on the deals it makes with others, the terms go like this: India can access any of the American naval bases to refuel, restock and repair any of their INS-batch operational carriers, but so can America access the Indian bases in the Indian Ocean.With Obama contending to vanquish Chinese ascendancy in the South China Sea, this pact is crucial to their success. An alternate perspective is also financially demoralizing for the Indian armed forces- the US Forces have also the right to use the Indian military bases for pre-informed routine tasks, without necessarily having to pay in cash for the requisitioned services. With the military budget by the current government pegged at 2.6% of India's GDP, additional expenditures with regard to foreign use may be detrimental to India's cash reserves.

The Foreign Affairs ministry might have a busy schedule at this moment, but is it safe to conclude that Modi's strategies will bear fruit? To me, the principle cause of worry is that America is known to bat for its self interest during the most crucial of times- deserting even her allies for her sake. Will extending this bonhomie over a cup of coffee with Obama really benefit India, especially taking into consideration that Obama is at the fag end of his Presidential term? I leave it upon you to decide it for yourself.